legal_review

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does: it discloses the return shape ('legal analysis framework with a knowledge base'), the verdict format ('structured GREEN/YELLOW/RED verdict with statute citations'), and the output elements ('compliant alternatives' and 'whether the user needs a real attorney'). This is substantive disclosure beyond the bare schema. Only minor gaps like latency or failure modes are absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Reasonably lean and well-ordered: purpose first, then when-to-use, then output behavior, then parameter docs. Each sentence earns its place. It is slightly long, but the length is justified by the 0% schema coverage, which forces the description to carry parameter documentation that would otherwise live in the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complete for a moderately complex tool with three parameters and an output schema. Purpose, invocation cues, response format, and all parameters are covered. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully restated, and the description's mention of the verdict structure complements rather than duplicates it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. The Args section documents all three parameters with plain-English meaning, concrete examples ('Can I scrape Google reviews...', 'MA', 'restaurant'), and behavioral notes: state 'prioritizes that state's laws alongside federal law' and business_type adds 'industry-specific context.' This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Evaluate a business decision for legal risk.' This is unambiguous and distinct. With no sibling tools present, no differentiation is needed, and the description fully establishes what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to call: 'Call this tool when a user asks whether a business action is legal, wants to know the legal risk of a decision, or needs to understand compliance requirements.' This is clear context for invocation. However, no when-not-to-use or alternative routing is given, though no siblings exist to exclude, so this is not a meaningful gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.